Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 11:58:01 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> Cc: Kevin Phair <phair.kevin@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: How are ports built now Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1406081155500.11322@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <F56C5A11AEC7DEB52D196A24@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> References: <FF2053FA1B75B463D14C7152@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <20140607202241.GA59544@spectrum.skysmurf.nl> <F15EFF113780A8A629B44407@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <53938114.9060303@gmx.de> <BC88D0CCB9E6BF97D053661F@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <5394837D.80901@gmail.com> <DA290E6DF4F0C04D8CDABC77@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1406081031580.10900@wonkity.com> <F56C5A11AEC7DEB52D196A24@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Paul Schmehl wrote: > --On June 8, 2014 at 10:32:33 AM -0600 Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> > wrote: > >> On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Paul Schmehl wrote: >> >>> Yes, I do have a few ports with none-default options. The problem is, >>> they're critical ports (like apache22). >> >> At present, these have to be built from ports. Long-term, there is a >> plan to have multiple packages for ports with options. >> > > It seems like a completely unworkable solution to me. For example, say you > have a port with 10 options. Imagine how many different binaries you would > have to have to cover every possible combination of selected options. It > would take a huge amount of storage I can't say how it will work, just pointing out that until variant packages are available, ports with default options that aren't as desired still have to be built locally.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1406081155500.11322>